Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will approach the conference, my colleague from Indiana, exactly the way I described to you. We will consider every issue that is in the bill as it comes out of the House of Representatives seriously as we approach conference. If it's accepted, it will be in the conference report. You have the ranking minority member. He is going to be a part of the conference. The other members of the committee are going to be a part of the conference, and we will treat this issue just as seriously as we treat all issues. We will support it in conference, and it will be a part of the process of the conference as it moves forward. I hope that is satisfactory to the gentleman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, division B of the bill before the House today includes appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and other independent and related agencies for fiscal year 2009. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the former ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who I think is on the floor here this afternoon, for his contribution to this title. Mr. Frelinghuysen leaves the subcommittee this year to become the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. Over the past 2 years, we have worked cooperatively together, and I'm very much appreciative of his recommendations in crafting this portion of the bill and the bipartisan approach he brings to his work generally. While it is with disappointment that he leaves our subcommittee, we are equally pleased to welcome Congressman Frank Wolf back to the subcommittee. Once its chairman, Congressman Wolf returns again this year as our ranking member in the 111th Congress. He too has a reputation for bipartisanship and the passion he brings to his work. I am pleased to welcome him and look forward to working with. Division B of the bill provides nearly $57.7 billion for programs of the Justice and Commerce Departments, NASA, NSF, and those related agencies. This level is an increase of $5.8 billion over comparable fiscal year 2008 levels. Programs funded within this division of the bill touch and enrich the lives of every American in many varied ways. Whether assisting the poor with legal representation; combating crime; and deterring terrorism and the scourge of drugs; improving and protecting our Nation's oceans, waters, and natural habitats; or enabling new discoveries in science here in our Nation's laboratories on Earth or in its heavens that lead to improvements in our health, this bill covers a broad swath. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that passage of this bill provides basic operating components of all of those agencies and does it well. In closing, let me acknowledge the work of the staff. They have put in long hours to get us here. My thanks to the staff's director, John Blazey, for his outstanding performance leading an excellent staff. Diana Simpson, Adrienne Simonson, Tracey LaTurner, and Scott Sammis have each brought their considerable talents and dedication to the task of producing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in particular let me recognize the contributions of Marjorie Duske. A new appropriations structure providing discrete appropriations for the salaries, expenses, and management of the Department of Justice's State and local law enforcement programs shall be a testament to her commitment to detail, program analysis, and tenacity. Marjorie worked for the House of Representatives for nearly 18 years, the last 2 of which were on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science. Marjorie is not here with us today as she has left the committee to begin a new opportunity in the upper body, and in a way returning a bit closer to her home, she now serves the senior Senator from Minnesota. In any event we on the committee wish her Godspeed and thank her for her service to the body.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the valuable contributions that Special Agent Scott Sammis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has made to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies this past year specifically, and to Members of the Congress and the American people more generally. Special Agent Scott Sammis came to the Subcommittee in February of 2008 on a professional detail from the ATF. At that time, Special Agent Sammis was Acting Division Chief of the Liaison Division within the Office of Public and Governmental Affairs. Special Agent Sammis joined the ATF nearly 20 years ago, and was first assigned to the Buffalo, New York field office. Soon after being assigned to that field office, Scott was the sole case agent on the Love Canal Bomber investigation. That investigation involved individuals who detonated two pipe bombs and set several fires in the vacant homes around the contaminated area, which had recently been declared habitable again. The individuals were arrested by Special Agent Sammis and ultimately convicted in U.S. District Court. Then in December of 1993, four package bombs detonated throughout New York State, killing five people and injuring two. Two other packages were intercepted and rendered safe by local law enforcement. Special Agent Sammis had been investigating a large recovery of dynamite from three months earlier, and was able to connect the two investigations on the night of the bombings. He subsequently identified a suspect and obtained a 44-page signed confession within 18 hours of the bombings. The two suspects were convicted in U.S. District Court. Sammis received ATF's Johnny Masengale Memorial Award for his work on this investigation. This annual award was established in memory of Special Agent Johnny A. Masengale to recognize ATF employees involved in a special effort or special achievement in an explosives investigation or an explosives-related support activity. Special Agent Sammis and his impressive work leading to these arrests were featured on American Justice. In October 1997, Special Agent Sammis was assigned to the Intelligence Division; specifically, the National Church Arson Task Force. As a project officer in this group, Special Agent Sammis utilized his computer skills to set up a database to track the hundreds of church fires occurring in the late 1990s. The honing of these computer skills would prove particularly invaluable to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. Over the following ten years, Special Agent Sammis would be assigned various positions within the ATF, including a position within the Resource Management Branch (RMB) of ATF's Financial Management Division and as the Resident Agent in Charge of the Richmond, Virginia Field Office. Upon joining the Subcommittee, Special Agent Sammis was responsible for managing the sizable and complex database of congressional requests made of the Subcommittee. The database included several thousand individual requests made by members of Congress. His tenacity, ingenuity and thoroughness brought clarity and order to the cumbersome and time-consuming process of reviewing and tracking the myriad annual requests. He worked tirelessly into the early morning hours to ensure that the tabular material for inclusion in the Committee reports was complete and accurate and that certification letters were correct and submitted in accordance with the Rules of the House. During conference deliberations with the Senate, Scott ensured that the House and Senate tables merged correctly--a difficult task given that the House and Senate Subcommittees use different databases. Scott, as always, rose to the occasion and volunteered to take on this extremely important, time- consuming task. In addition, Special Agent Sammis reviewed the congressional budget submissions of several independent agencies, and, at only the appropriate times, offered his impressions and observations based on his unique, personal experience in the field when questions related to law enforcement arose. When the work of the Subcommittee required late- night or extended hours, Special Agent Sammis ensured that the Subcommittee staff did not go without proper nourishment, offering suggestions from the menus of neighborhood eateries. He kept a catalog of quotable quips, day-to-day musings that brought him private amusement. His nail pin compressor, electric drill and hammer were always ready at hand, and for the sake of expediency, he insisted on moving office furniture in his suit and tie. There was little he would not do gladly. He performed his job admirably, with good humor and patience. Simply, Special Agent Sammis covered all the bases, and exceeded everyone's expectations. It is with regret that the Subcommittee returns Special Agent Sammis to the ATF today. He has represented the law enforcement agents of the ATF with distinction and honor. I personally want to extend my appreciation, and that of Ranking Member Rodney Frelinghuysen, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby, and the Subcommittee staff for a job very well done. Once again, Scott, you have served the Congress and the American people well.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I want to thank both my colleagues for their very kind, gracious remarks about West Virginia University and the game that we speak of today, particularly the Fiesta Bowl game. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 938, congratulating the West Virginia University Mountaineer football team for its recent outstanding Fiesta Bowl victory. The Mountaineers' regular season closed with an unexpected and a bit demoralizing loss that ended the team's bid for a national championship. As a further complication, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, the team began preparation for the Fiesta Bowl without its head coach, who left suddenly for another opportunity. WVU consequently was branded the underdog for the Fiesta Bowl appearance. But these young men and the able interim head coach, who is now the permanent head coach, who stepped into the void were steady, they were confident, and they were prepared to pursue a game plan unaffected by the swirling controversies and the many media pundits who predicted defeat. Mr. Speaker, seeing that team demonstrate grit, skill, and determination, as described by my colleagues, to silence its critics, while overcoming challenges, reminds us of the potential for accomplishment that resides in us all. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Res. 938, as it offers a ``well done'' to a team that set a high bar for accomplishment, focus, and determination.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that this amendment would send an important message to the EEOC, but I agree it's important for a different reason. I think it's important because I think it would be a perverse message. The United States Congress has, in previous years, passed legislation specifically granting to the EEOC authorization and responsibility to work on behalf of employees where they face discrimination in the workplace. That legislation anticipated an opening of a remedy for employees. This amendment would close a remedy for employees. These cases should be decided on their facts. If we were to adopt this motion and the conference were to include the amendment in its agreement, then the EEOC would not have an opportunity to look at the facts and represent employees pursuant thereto. Therefore, we do oppose the amendment. I want to point out that the court in this case upheld the decision and upheld the position of the employer in this case. That's well and good. What's important in that is that the court, through due process, decided the matter. That's the way the EEOC ought to operate, not through Congress in a motion to instruct conferees and in an appropriation conference, taking away what the Congress has already given jurisdiction in these cases. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge in the strongest terms opposition to the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the policy that this amendment addresses is obviously authorizing the policy that the EEOC has followed in this area through Democratic and Republican administrations. They have had a consistent position on the employer English-only policies throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations. This amendment would undermine that long standing policy. If the gentlelady and the gentleman want to change that, they ought to take it to the authorizing committee where they can have hearings and have a full-blown discussion, rather than trying to change this policy that has been in place for a long period of time, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. The amendment should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. First of all, let me compliment the gentleman from Indiana on his project. We are here arguing, debating, describing, justifying, and questioning the merits of this particular project. However you want to describe it, the gentleman who offers the amendment, his basis of offering these amendments is, on the one hand, that we shouldn't be doing this. We talk about that on almost every amendment, the fact that indeed it is the job of the United States Congress and particularly the House of Representatives in the first instance under Article I of the Constitution to do just exactly this. This is our job. This is what we do--we provide funding for the United States of America. The gentleman, I'm paraphrasing, said one Member of the body or of the Appropriations Committee or one Member of the Congress brings a project forward. Well, there's nobody in the Congress who would bring a project forward for this gentleman's congressional district if it were not this gentleman. And then we get to the merits of the particular project. This one seems eminently justifiable; funding for equipment to train young people in forecasting. If you believe in government participation in education, that's what we do, and this is how we can empower this institution, this educational institution, so that they can bring excellent training for weather forecasting, which I think we all have to stipulate is extremely important for the Midwest in light of the kind of weather conditions they have. So let me compliment the gentleman from Indiana for his project, and for bringing it to us. We have looked at it carefully, and perhaps we should say thank you to the gentleman who raises the amendment for giving the gentleman from Indiana an opportunity to stand up and discuss and describe his amendment for us and for his constituency. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the FEC is planning to issue new regulations to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that the gentleman reference. That issue, with regard to mentioning candidates, may be seen in the run-up to elections. This amendment would not interfere with that process. Mr. Chairman, we'll accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for bringing this important technology, place-based data collection stations, to my attention. I am pleased to consider this funding need as we move forward to conference should funds become available.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move very slowly to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are awaiting the arrival of the unanimous consent, which has been a long time coming, and it is still slow in arriving. Once it gets here, it will facilitate and speed up our business for the day. It will allow us to, in an orderly fashion, finish our business on CJS, not as expeditiously as we would like. If he hadn't just arrived, I would have been asking my ranking minority member to get up and contribute to this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3093 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 562, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for the Executive Office of Immigration Review; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill by 0.05 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Capuano regarding funding for young witness assistance; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds for attendance at international conferences; An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Federal law enforcement on tribal land; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding the early release of prisoners; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding transit workers' access to interoperable communications; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding the safety of the International Space Station; An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 3 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Mack or Mr. Flake limiting funds for certain FBI letters unless certain reporting requirements are met; An amendment by Mr. McHenry limiting funds to award a grant or contract on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California regarding the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; An amendment by Mr. Tancredo or Mr. Hunter limiting funds for the Security and Prosperity Partnership; An amendment by Mr. Upton, Ms. Harman, Mr. Lipinski, or Mr. Inglis of South Carolina regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Weldon of Florida limiting Community Oriented Policing funds for State and local governments acting in contravention of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act; An amendment by Mr. Weldon of Florida or Mr. King of Iowa limiting State Criminal Alien Assistance Funds for State and local governments acting in contravention of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting State Criminal Alien Assistance Funds for State and local governments unless certain reporting requirements are met; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding a study of aliens in prison; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds for the Institute for Scientific Research, the West Virginia High Tech Consortium Foundation, the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, the MountainMade Foundation; or the Canaan Valley Institute; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Mollohan regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. NASA has been on the forefront of safety on the NASA side, these provisions she has worked on in 2005 to incorporate into authorizing. She is reaffirming these safety procedures in this amendment, and we certainly have no objection on that. We accept the amendment and compliment her on her efforts to improve and insist upon safety in NASA operations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to expand on the excellent debate and the points that have been made in opposition to this amendment. The fact is we are in a period of rising crime. In the last 2 years we have experienced a rise in crime. We are looking at an amendment that proposes an across-the-board cut. The first thing you all need to understand about this amendment is that it is indiscriminate. It doesn't look at what programs are being cut. It doesn't talk about cutting one program more because it's a lower priority or that program less because it's a higher priority, or excluding some programs from being cut because they are a tremendously high priority. My colleague just talked about State and local law enforcement. The previous amendment would have cut the Justice Department by some $681 million. This amendment cuts the Justice Department by $335 million. Those are real dollars and real cuts to law enforcement. Those cuts translate directly to local law enforcement and the people that are actually fighting crime in the streets. What the Federal Government has done to support those folks in the past is given them resources, as the gentleman just described. If you are the sheriff's department in rural America, or you are the chief of police in urban America, or if you are a local law enforcement coordinator, then you are hurt badly by this across-the-board cut amendment. The last amendment was a $45 million cut to State and local law enforcement. That means, as the gentleman just eloquently described, a large cut to our State and local law enforcement. I would like to describe another area of the bill that would be cut by this amendment. To emphasize how real these cuts are, let's look at NASA. We have acknowledged that NASA is not being funded at a level that allows it to meet its missions across the board. If you are at Glenn Research Center or the Ames Research Center, and you are out there listening to this amendment, you need to understand that across- the-board cuts are going to mean significant things to your institutes. It means you are going to have fewer resources when right now you have a mission that you already lack resources to perform. Employees at Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Flight Center in Texas, or who live in the communities and depend on it will be impacted by this amendment. Science. This amendment would cut $79.7 million out of the science account. In this bill we tried to increase the science account so they will be able to do their missions. Aeronautics; $9 million. And out of exploration--Johnson Space Flight Center and Kennedy Space Flight Center ought to be really tuned in to this--$54.9 million. A total cut for NASA, Mr. Chairman, of $246.7 million. NASA is concerned about that. NASA says, and let me read, ``The consequence of these cuts is that NASA will not be able to make as effective or safe a transition to the new systems as originally planned. There will likely be significant workforce impacts as a result. Thus these budget reductions have ripple effects over many years due to the highly integrated nature of the shuttle and exploration systems. Many shuttle employees are at risk with these across-the-board cuts.'' So, Mr. Chairman, this is just another reason of why we should be against these across-the-board cuts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.